I have been quite impressed by the breadth and depth of the conversations in CCK08, and have already started thinking about what I can take back to my more ordinary teaching and training. Here I run into a challenge, and it’s got me thinking about our network diagrams.
All the ones I’ve seen are two dimensional, but I think there’s a third dimension, prior learning, which plays an important role. While few of us know anywhere near what George and Stephen do about the topics of the course, neither are most of us novices. Many of us are familiar with social networks, concept maps, and learning theory, for example. Therefore we have some prior understanding in which to ground our thinking, leading to some intelligent comments and questions.
I am considering two possibilities.
a. The level of discourse correlates directly to the mean level of prior learning. If you put knowledgeable people together, the conversation will be good.
b. Discourse level correlates inversely to the standard deviation of the level of prior learning. I think of this in terms of knowledge/learning gaps. My imagined typical case is the standard freshman survey of X where the instructor knows quite a bit and the students often know very little.
When we think about networks for learning, we have to ask , “From where in the network is the knowledge/information/etc. going to propagate?” I know this goes against the idea that the knowledge is in the network links, but, for example, I just saw a classmate Tweet a request for information on how to perform a technology task. In that instance there was a specific piece of information (instructions on how to do Y). The questioner was trying to find a node (person) on the network that had that information.
This isn’t to say there is no gestalt. In interacting with your network, you can come up with an idea that you and others on your network hadn’t thought of before. Perhaps those two processes work side by side.
I now notice that I’m rambling, so I’ll quiet down and see what everyone else thinks.
ConnectedEd - A blog about learning and technology 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
2 October, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Lisa M Lane
Prior learning can be an important element to success; I’ve seen it in class. That said, it depends on what is meant by “learning” (I think I’ve got “prior” down). Does it mean content that is known?
I don’t think so. You wrote, “Many of us are familiar with social networks, concept maps, and learning theory, for example.” Before this class began, I knew what a social network was, of course, but only in a practical sense. I similarly had seen a few concept maps, but did not know that’s what they were called or the theories behind them. I had read John Holt and Maria Montessori, but had never heard of the learning theories being discussed.
I had no problem catching up. Not because I knew the content of these things, but because I know how to learn and I am able to make cognitive…um…connections between the new information and my prior learning.
The students who do very well in my history classes do not do so because of prior content knowledge. They succeed because they know how to learn and make connections in their minds between the new stuff and the stuff they “know” already, and they are eager to do so.
2 October, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Jason Green
Lisa,
I see your point about knowing how to learn, but even you mention making “connections between the new information and my prior learning.” Since you’re an educator, a significant bit of that learning, even if it wasn’t formal, has to do with how people learn.
As a contrast, I imagine what would happen if I were dropped into a discussion of string theory. I have precious little prior learning that has anything to do with string theory and suspect it would take me quite some time to catch up enough so that I could contribute intelligently. Surely there are some who, in a given learning environment, are motivated to learn but are challenged because there are huge gaps between what is being learned and their previous learning to which they are trying to connect it.
3 October, 2008 at 2:49 am
Lisa M Lane
An excellent point. There does indeed seem to be some content that’s necessary for understanding complex subjects (at least, that’s where I’d put string theory).
At the same time, you’ve got me wondering whether I could learn string theory…
Is there a difference, do you think, between the kind of content needed for a science and the more general reasoning/analysis/language skills required for a field like history or literature?
3 October, 2008 at 3:32 pm
jennymackness
Hi – this is an interesting discussion. I hope it’s OK for me to join you. As a teacher I have always paid attention to prior learning – but not because it can be an important element to success, but simply because as a learner you need to know what you already know and don’t know to know which direction to move in, and as a teacher you need to know what the learners already know to be able to decide on an appropriate curriculum. I think there has been plenty of research evidence to show that too much of a gap between what a learner already knows and what they are required to learn can have a negative effect on learning for many (but not necessarily all – as Lisa points out). But most teachers will be trying to make an effective match between the curriculum and prior learning for most of their learners (or is this just an assumption).
I’m not sure what you mean by prior learning being a third dimension in a network diagram Jason. I think prior learning is an important consideration in how a learner learns and what curriculum is needed – but so are other considerations such as motivation, self-esteem and so on. Were you thinking of this in a different way? Have I misunderstood?
Jenny
3 October, 2008 at 11:58 pm
B-ob
Prior learning can also be a disadvantage. For a simple instance,consider changing from a mechanical typewriter to a computer keyboard. New keyboard features like being able to bold or italicize to indicate emphasis negate the necessity to underline words or type them in upper case. Moreover, the underlined words in the computer network generally indicate a link to another page (confusing) and the all uppercase words indicate SHOUTING to more experienced users (rude.)
Yet the “Network for Newbies” reading in the second week of this course was full of these confusing typewriter anachronisms.
my 2¢
B-ob